Restoration Hardware, Inc. et al v. South Sea Rattan Furniture, Inc.

Filing 19

ORDER continuing the Case Management Conference to 8/18/2015 at 10:00 AM based on Plaintiff's Case Management Statement 18 signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte. (shyS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/17/2015)

1 MICHAEL J. MCCUE (SBN: 296425)
Email: [e-mail]
2 AARON D. JOHNSON (SBN: 261747)
Email: [e-mail]
3 Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP
4300 Bohannon Drive
4 Menlo Park, CA 94025
[phone] (Tel.)
5 [phone] (Fax)
6 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
RESTORATION HARDWARE, INC.
7 RH US, LLC
8

3993 Howard Hughes Parkway
Suite 600
Las Vegas, NV 89169-5996

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12 RESTORATION HARDWARE, INC.,
a Delaware corporation, and RH US,
13 LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company,
14
Plaintiffs,
15
vs.
16
SOUTH SEA RATTAN FURNITURE,
17 INC., a North Carolina corporation,
18

Civil Case No.: 3:15-cv-00891-EDL
The Honorable Magistrate Judge
Elizabeth D. Laporte
PLAINTIFFS RESTORATION
HARDWARE, INC. AND RH US,
LLC’S CASE MANAGEMENT
STATEMENT AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER

Defendant.

19
20

Plaintiffs Restoration Hardware, Inc. and RH US, LLC (collectively, “RH”)

21 hereby submit this Case Management Statement and Proposed Order pursuant to the
22 Court’s Case Management Order (Doc. No. 15) and Civil Local Rule 16-9.
23

1.

Jurisdiction and Service:

24

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28

25 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338 because this action involves claims for patent infringement
26 in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 1, et seq.
27

As indicated in the previous Case Management Statement (Doc. No. 14), after

28 Defendant was notified of this matter, Defendant expressed an interest in settlement.
1

Plaintiffs’ Case Management Statement,
3:15-cv-00891-EDL

1 The parties are in the final stages of finalizing those settlement terms. As of the
2 filing of this statement, Defendant is reviewing the written settlement agreement.
3 RH fully expects this case to settle within the next two to three weeks. To facilitate
4 settlement and conserve costs, Defendant has not been formally served.
5

2.

6

RH is an innovative and popular luxury brand for home furnishings. RH

Facts:

7 holds design patents for its furniture designs. RH alleges that Defendant sells
8 products that violate RH’s patents. RH brought this action for damages and other

3993 Howard Hughes Parkway
Suite 600
Las Vegas, NV 89169-5996

9 appropriate relief.
10

3.

Legal Issues:

11

 RH’s ownership of the patents-in-suit;

12

 Whether Defendant has infringed the patents-in-suit; and

13

 The amount of damages Defendant should pay RH.

14

4.

15

None.

16

5.

17

None.

18

6.

19

RH’s counsel certifies that it has reviewed the Guidelines Relating to the

Pending And Anticipated Motions:

Anticipated Pleading Amendments:

Evidence Preservation:

20 Discovery of Electronically Stored Information. Because Defendant has not been
21 served, there has not been a conference held regarding reasonable and proportionate
22 steps taken to preserve electronic evidence. However, RH confirms that it has taken
23 steps to preserve evidence relevant to the issues reasonably evident in this action.
24

7.

25

Because Defendant has not been served, the parties have not conducted a Rule

Disclosures:

26 26(f) conference and have not discussed a proposed discovery plan.
27

8.

28

Because Defendant has not been served, the parties have not conducted a Rule

Discovery:
2

Plaintiffs’ Case Management Statement,
3:15-cv-00891-EDL

1 26(f) conference and have not discussed a proposed discovery plan.
2

9.

3

Not applicable.

4

10.

5

RH has filed several enforcement actions in this district against other

Class Actions:

Related Cases:

6 infringers of RH’s intellectual property:
7
8

3993 Howard Hughes Parkway
Suite 600
Las Vegas, NV 89169-5996

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

 Restoration Hardware, Inc., et al. v. South Sea Rattan Furniture, Inc.,
Case No. 3:15-cv-00891-EDL;
 Restoration Hardware, Inc. et al. v. Stanislaus Funding, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 3:15-00892-EDL;
 Restoration Hardware, Inc. et al. v. Chicago Wicker & Trading Co.,
Case No. 3:15-00894-EDL;
 Restoration Hardware, Inc., et al. v. Heng Zhong,
Case No. 4:15-cv-00937-KAW;
 Restoration Hardware, Inc., et al. v. HFONC, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 4:15-cv-00954-DMR;
 Restoration Hardware, Inc., et al. v. Light in the Box Ltd.,
Case No. 4:15-cv-00924-KAW;
 Restoration Hardware, Inc., et al. v. Patio Shoppers, Inc.,
Case No. 4:15-cv-00936-DMR;
 Restoration Hardware, Inc., et al. v. PHX Lighting, LLC,
Case No. 3:15-cv-00918-EDL;
 Restoration Hardware, Inc. et al. v. Topson Lighting, Ltd.,
Case No. 5:15-cv-00938-HRL; and
 Restoration Hardware, Inc. et al. v. HomeLava Ltd.,
Case No. 3:15-cv-00926-EDL.
In an order dated May 12, 2015, in Restoration Hardware, Inc., et al. v. South

28 Sea Rattan Furniture, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00891-EDL, (Doc. 13) Magistrate
3

Plaintiffs’ Case Management Statement,
3:15-cv-00891-EDL

1 Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte determined that the following cases are related under
2 local Civil Rule 3-12:
 Restoration Hardware, Inc., et al. v. South Sea Rattan Furniture, Inc.,

3
4

Case No. 3:15-cv-00891-EDL;
 Restoration Hardware, Inc. et al. v. Stanislaus Funding, Inc. et al.,

5
6

Case No. 3:15-00892-EDL; and
 Restoration Hardware, Inc. et al. v. Chicago Wicker & Trading Co.,

7
8

3993 Howard Hughes Parkway
Suite 600
Las Vegas, NV 89169-5996

9

Case No. 3:15-00894-EDL.
Each of these cases have been assigned to Magistrate Judge Laporte. With

10 respect to the other cases, while RH does not believe they are related cases under
11 Civil Local Rule 3-12 because they involve different defendants selling different
12 products, RH does not oppose assignment to a single judge. See, e.g., EIT Holdings
13 LLC v. Yelp!, Inc., No. C 10–05623 WHA, 2011 WL 2192820, 2 (N.D. Cal. May 12,
14 2011) (“Given the disparity in defendants, websites, and other disparate issues
15 discussed herein like damages, willfulness, and discovery supervision, it is worth
16 adding that the allegations against each defendant would not be related under our
17 civil local rules even if brought here as separate actions.

See Civil L.R. 3–

18 12(a)(2)”).
19

11.

20

RH seeks both injunctive relief and damages under the Patent Act.

21

12.

22

The parties are engaged in informal settlement discussions.

23

13.

24

RH has consented to the Magistrate Judge assigned to this case for all

Relief:

Settlement and ADR:

Consent to Magistrate For All Purposes:

25 purposes.
26

14.

27

This case is not suitable for reference to binding arbitration, a special master,

Other References:

28 or the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.
4

Plaintiffs’ Case Management Statement,
3:15-cv-00891-EDL

1

15.

2

Because Defendant has not been served, the parties have not discussed

Narrowing of Issues:

3 narrowing the issues.
4

16.

5

Because Defendant has not been served, the parties have not discussed

Expedited Trial Procedure:

6 whether this case can be handled under the Expedited Trial Procedures.
7

17.

8

Because Defendant has not been served, the parties have not discussed

Scheduling:

3993 Howard Hughes Parkway
Suite 600
Las Vegas, NV 89169-5996

9 discovery scheduling.
10

18.

11

RH did not demand a jury trial. RH preliminarily estimates that a bench trial

Trial:

12 would require between 3 to 5 trial days.
13

19.

14

RH has filed its certification of interested entities or persons. Pursuant to

Disclosure of Non Party Interested Entities or Persons:

15 Rule 7.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs Restoration Hardware,
16 Inc. and RH US, LLC are each direct or indirect wholly owned subsidiaries of
17 Restoration Hardware Holdings, Inc., a publicly traded Delaware corporation.
18

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-15, the undersigned certifies that, as of this

19 date, other than the named parties, there are no entities or persons who have a
20 financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding,
21 or any other kind of interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of
22 the proceeding.
23

20.

24

RH’s counsel of record has reviewed the Guidelines for Professional Conduct

Professional Conduct:

25 for the Northern District of California.
26
27
28

21.

Other Matters That Would Facilitate a Just, Speedy and
Inexpensive Disposition of this Matter:

Because of the pending settlement discussions, RH requests that the Case
5

Plaintiffs’ Case Management Statement,
3:15-cv-00891-EDL

1 Management Conference be continued for thirty (30) days.
2

Respectfully submitted,

3
4 Dated: July 16, 2015

By:

5
6
7
8

Attorneys for Plaintiffs
RESTORATION HARDWARE, INC.
RH US, LLC.

9
3993 Howard Hughes Parkway
Suite 600
Las Vegas, NV 89169-5996

/s/ Aaron D. Johnson
MICHAEL J. MCCUE
AARON D. JOHNSON
Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP
3993 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 600
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169-5996
[phone] (Tel.)
[phone] (Fax)

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6

Plaintiffs’ Case Management Statement,
3:15-cv-00891-EDL

1
2

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
Based on the PLAINTIFFS RESTORATION HARDWARE, INC. AND

3 RH US, LLC’S CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND [PROPOSED]
4 ORDER filed by Plaintiffs on July 16, 2015 the Court hereby continues the Case
5 Management Conference for this case for 30 days until _________________, 2015
August 18
___
6 at ______ am/pm. All related deadlines under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16
10:00

7 and 25 and applicable case management and discovery local rules and standing
8 orders shall be continued to accord with the new conference date.

3993 Howard Hughes Parkway
Suite 600
Las Vegas, NV 89169-5996

9

IT IS SO ORDERED

10

Dated: July 17, 2015

11
12
13

By: ____________________________________
The Honorable Magistrate Judge
Elizabeth D. Laporte

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7

Plaintiffs’ Case Management Statement,
3:15-cv-00891-EDL